From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] i2c: meson: add gxbb compatible string Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 01:26:42 +0200 Message-ID: <20160923232641.GB5683@katana> References: <1473846557-18123-1-git-send-email-jbrunet@baylibre.com> <20160915194146.GB7863@katana> <20160923221312.GA5683@katana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TRYliJ5NKNqkz5bu" Return-path: Received: from sauhun.de ([89.238.76.85]:56069 "EHLO pokefinder.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752017AbcIWX0t (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 19:26:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Jerome Brunet , Neil Armstrong , Kevin Hilman , "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" , Carlo Caione , linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" --TRYliJ5NKNqkz5bu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > I intentionally don't ask people to send me the patches squashed. So, > > you will have them seperate in patchwork et al. I only squash them just > > before commiting to my tree. That's because I found that when digging > > through git history, it is much more convenient to have all the > > information in one commit. >=20 > If git history was the only thing that mattered, then that would be > fine. But it is not. Maintainers should apply what's on the list. > Period. Huh? If you would *ask* me to stop squashing, I am listening to reasons. If you want to force arbitrary rules on me, I am not. There are reasons where squashing/modifying patches makes more sense compared to forcing the author to resend. DTS bindings may not be one, we can discuss that. But that rule without allowing exceptions seems impractical to me. --TRYliJ5NKNqkz5bu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJX5boxAAoJEBQN5MwUoCm2HBQP/Agwbei8uHzkJwmNoH7cGrS5 gUA3avuq40s8cKwOa/64zjSfPY0vPkwrvaw75OKqM1fIj2Bm316zwG6/6n3C5cvO s7D0m76j+7++HP/FA3N8awWDWlDSgB6trgavBOdBd2YXGJXMUh2JOuJgndP0D8YI 6WyPr/d7ksypAWrTI9TnO0IVDtJoNvvgqe+Rf6viCmPgKPUFgE/w2XjKPvjVHG/t hlKO0fvfLw7q4VFtPro2VLFiz/RDS3uC1yaZmhRqIqDNeFkMJsWJFxQ3Bc5SPoDi X7b3DwHnUHnIqf76urS+pV8ATfyt0ylH1sHWvycI0EP+lk8FcXB+mOOdu/bvb4Nq 7236laSLCnszkb+vtyOtG0hEonFk9qak8cFvi2E6Km991CMoxbME+09VAAQKAsTe c8a+hqJZsXHGWm6Atf5/IKbH0Jc8+uMmMORcmStcLuIl79JX5vbH9a7eS/8p62Jo uQDCLSbjUDx18qEag/5brfEzLhtjMsF8lMK8vPp0580WLdqbkt7Mbrd7Qq3wgKoG HSZHhTh2re9DvnRDrgnBJh0Y4QoEvSTUFVPdm1Ek+UVfJLUiDqvZwg9/P/AKVwDM Vv+Oke1HsZAq02tqAGLoQ9+9zrEQ9aU1QFKWbs4WvS3YWqazRCSqGzDE08fblhwo 6dqATNoX8rnIZi3HTLh6 =vfkI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TRYliJ5NKNqkz5bu-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 01:26:42 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] i2c: meson: add gxbb compatible string In-Reply-To: References: <1473846557-18123-1-git-send-email-jbrunet@baylibre.com> <20160915194146.GB7863@katana> <20160923221312.GA5683@katana> Message-ID: <20160923232641.GB5683@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > > I intentionally don't ask people to send me the patches squashed. So, > > you will have them seperate in patchwork et al. I only squash them just > > before commiting to my tree. That's because I found that when digging > > through git history, it is much more convenient to have all the > > information in one commit. > > If git history was the only thing that mattered, then that would be > fine. But it is not. Maintainers should apply what's on the list. > Period. Huh? If you would *ask* me to stop squashing, I am listening to reasons. If you want to force arbitrary rules on me, I am not. There are reasons where squashing/modifying patches makes more sense compared to forcing the author to resend. DTS bindings may not be one, we can discuss that. But that rule without allowing exceptions seems impractical to me. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 01:26:42 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] i2c: meson: add gxbb compatible string In-Reply-To: References: <1473846557-18123-1-git-send-email-jbrunet@baylibre.com> <20160915194146.GB7863@katana> <20160923221312.GA5683@katana> Message-ID: <20160923232641.GB5683@katana> To: linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linus-amlogic.lists.infradead.org > > I intentionally don't ask people to send me the patches squashed. So, > > you will have them seperate in patchwork et al. I only squash them just > > before commiting to my tree. That's because I found that when digging > > through git history, it is much more convenient to have all the > > information in one commit. > > If git history was the only thing that mattered, then that would be > fine. But it is not. Maintainers should apply what's on the list. > Period. Huh? If you would *ask* me to stop squashing, I am listening to reasons. If you want to force arbitrary rules on me, I am not. There are reasons where squashing/modifying patches makes more sense compared to forcing the author to resend. DTS bindings may not be one, we can discuss that. But that rule without allowing exceptions seems impractical to me. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: